by Eric Schansberg, Ph.D.
The past — First, let’s talk about the five lousy U.S. presidents in the 21st century. Because the candidates have been so bad (and their political parties haven’t been much better), elections have been (much) more about not choosing X, instead of choosing Y. (Putting it another way: Partisans enable their politicians, while independents largely choose between “the lesser of two evils.”) And so, Bush II beget Obama/Clinton, who beget Trump I. Granted, Covid gave us Biden. But then Biden/Harris clearly beget Trump II. Now, Trump II has clearly begotten the Dem congressional wave of 2026. Maybe this was Obama’s plan from the beginning? Genius.
As an aside, it’s worth noting that the Libertarians gave us a much better choice in 2016 with Governors Johnson and Weld — in terms of ideology and executive experience. But most voters have low standards and are too stuck on the major parties. Wow . . . looking back, what a different world we’d have today, huh?
What caused the wave? — Some combo of policy, perception and personality: the war with Iran, higher gas prices, excesses in immigration enforcement (after the excesses of the previous admin), failing to deliver on “affordability” (oversold and/or misperceived? ain’t nobody gonna bring down general prices.), and vibes (Trump being [perceived as] a jack wagon). Did (propaganda against) data centers add fuel?
The near-term future in terms of governance —The Dems crushed it, but is this a policy mandate (in any realm) or merely a strong anti-Trump vibe spasm? If there is a mandate, do Dems (as a governing group) have any policy ideas — and if so, are they palatable to the general public? Will they focus on investigations and impeachments? If so, will they overplay their hand, as they did the last time?
As for Trump, he still has EOs and some war powers. He should continue to fade, especially after this beatdown — and as Election 2028 gets rolling soon. I’ve said a few times that I wouldn’t be shocked if he resigned in the last two years of his term. In addition to the provocative impact on his legacy, he has convenient excuses now as well: he could reference vague health issues or say that he’s trying to avoid someone on the Left trying to kill him again.
As for potential bipartisanship, it’s more likely than would appear at first glance. Consider Trump’s often-unprincipled approach to policy and his Dem/big-govt inclinations to many aspects of public policy. With that, there’s plenty of room for “compromise,” especially if it involves more spending and (undemocratic) debt. Unfortunately, I can’t imagine another version of the post-1994 Clinton years. But is there a possible “Nixon in China” moment? I can’t imagine it, but then again, that’s where the label comes from.
The longer-term electoral future — Let’s start with the broad observation that your party won’t be allowed to govern indefinitely, especially if your reps are incompetent, feckless, nasty, and/or your in office when bad things happen that will be blamed on you. Given the low quality of the work done by pols in federal politics this century — and the sycophantic enabling of pols by partisans— “independents” in the “middle of the political spectrum” will be the primary catalysts of change every few years. (Does one political party or the other have more trouble accepting this reality? If so, I’d predict it’s the Dems, given their greater reliance on emotion and their greater focus on the short-run over the long-run.)
Dems are now in good shape going into 2028. If they can pick a non-radical and reasonably competent candidate — and if current events don’t change much — they should have a substantial advantage in winning the next presidency. Granted, this will be a challenge in their primary system. Perhaps the Dems will again angle their process away from democracy to choose a better candidate? They should be good in the House until at least 2030. And they may be good until 2032 in the Senate when Tuesday’s freshman wave will have to deal with far less promising electoral circumstances. Bad news: This sort of advantage can breed complacency or misguided moves.
For the GOP, the terrible beatdown should make it far easier to ease/walk away from Trump and Trumpian politics. Yay. Vance probably has to run in 2028. But I’d guess Rubio will pass — and like others, will survey the land and decide to wait until 2032. I can’t imagine anyone except DeSantis having a good shot for the GOP in 2028. (Who are the other less-obvious viable possibilities?)
A few thoughts on Indiana
The Dems won about 71K more votes than the GOPers in the U.S. House races. As I wrote about this earlier in the year, more creative/Machiavellian redistricting can make you more prone to being swamped by waves. Apparently, if the GOP redistricting effort had gone through, the Dem wave would have taken eight of the nine seats. Hopefully, those who lost the redistricting battle last year will be humble and apologize to those they opposed, especially if they were jack wagons about it.
Greg Ballard’s race for Secretary of State was impressive on one level. (Hey, 5 percent of the vote is good for a non-major-party candidate.) But it was weak sauce from another angle. (So much less than promised and compared to what you’d expect with a strong candidate, his name brand and the money behind the effort. Then again, this underlines the power of the two-party system with our voting system.) And it’s really interesting at another level, going forward. (What will happen with the Lincon Party’s ballot access?)
As for the Libertarians, it can be hoped they maintain their ballot access with 2 percent in the Secretary of State race. But by my count, they’re going to fall about 250 votes shy. (Using moronic but common partisan rhetoric: Ballard “took votes” from them. Or think how many people “wasted their votes” on Bayh, Max or Greg.)
In any case, my biggest concern is a question I put to Greg about party structure and control. He had no answer that day and apparently didn’t bother to develop one. Given that they have little or no plan in this regard, then ballot access for the Lincoln Party will almost certainly devolve into cranks jumping into their “party.” Even assuming the Libertarians stay on the ballot, two cheers for expanded ballot access, I guess. But what does it matter? It’s difficult to see this as much of a meaningful win for democracy or public policy, short-term or long-term.
D. Eric Schansberg is Professor of Economics at Indiana University Southeast, the author of “Poor Policy: How Government Harms the Poor,” and an adjunct scholar of the Indiana Policy Review.
